Guild Wars Wiki talk:Feedback organization

Archive

---

Previous discussion is also available here.

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4
• /Archive 5

Regarding talk page, feedback, and so forth

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal

Here's the issue, in a nutshell. Initially people occasionally posted suggestions on your talk page and you responded to them. This led to a snowball effect where people began to say "Hey, my ideas have a greater chance of being implemented if I tell John Stumme directly" and the posts became more and more frequent. Then in this section, a comment you made led certain people to believe that you (and by extension ArenaNet) were not even aware of the Feedback space, which is where users have been posting their suggestions for years. Now it seems as though the majority of users believe that their suggestions won't be seen at all unless they are posted here. This is a problem, and it's compounded because this is your talk page and normally users are the arbiters of their own talk pages. Unfortunately it's gotten to the point where we can't just say "If John is okay with it then it's okay with us," because it's effectively undermined the entire Feedback namespace.

Furthermore, there's been no real discussion on how to deal with this problem. Some users and sysops, myself included, have taken to moving obvious game suggestions off your talk page, but we don't want to step on toes and we certainly don't want to alienate you by zapping your conversations away. Other users (and one sysop) have adopted more of a "If you can't beat them, join them" approach, which led to a small wikisplosion the other day. I blame Libya.

Now I am of the opinion that we need to have a real discussion regarding what to do about the Feedback space, and it's of vital importance that you participate because the entire purpose of the Feedback space is to provide devs with a legal option for using player input. I don't think this problem will go away if we just ignore it. elix Omni 23:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

something to keep in-mind is that john's talk page is in the feedback namespace. hence "Editing Feedback talk:John Stumme"- Zesbeer 23:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's an organizational issue, not a legal one. elix Omni 23:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Lol, you blame Libya... Seriously, this is a big problem. With about the only person from the design team that posts on the wiki on a regular basis, it feels like the entire "pay attention to my great idea/troll" crowd has really grown in number and converged here. This was created originally to deal with that problem, and it seems like the attention seeking crowd (troll) is again back in force. I like seeing John post here on a regular basis as it updates the fan base on new developments, and also give the opportunity for the nice fans to praise John and his awe inspiring work. But I don't want the same thing from the past happening again with the previous developers and Anet people getting trolled off the wiki. I think someone suggested creating a split for design feedback and regular chitchat for John's talk page kinda like how Gaile split her talk pages into regular chitchat and support... And IMO that seems to be working okay for that. But then again, feedback issues are quite different from support issues so I dunno. :-/ --Lania 23:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the quickest (but not best) solution outside leaving (don't do that q_q) would be to go through the feedback space and comment on those not possible to implement, leaving those possible viewed but uncommented on - if this is seen as precedent, then people will think "no response=they may use it" alongside "they haven't seen it." Merely stop commenting on suggestions alone won't solve the issue sadly, nor will always moving things. What needs to happen is to show in some form that Anet does in fact look at the suggestions - even if it doesn't prove that they look at every single suggestion.

Of course, there's multiple interviews that exist out there that explicitly state that Anet does go to fan-forums and do see ideas they either like or have already implemented on said forums, so who knows how much that would really help. All of the possible solutions outside of the easiest and least desired are theoretical. -- Konig/talk 01:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Auron already addressed this on his own talk, I don't see any point to bringing it up here if there isn't even any good theoretical solutions. --ilr 01:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

the stuff that has been moved needs to be moved to the users feed back namespace not there talk page like what has been happening.- Zesbeer 02:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Deja Vu, I believe Greener and others already came to a consensus on that... So where the template then? --ilr 02:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I would concur with Konig's idea above about commenting on the ideas they know they can't use and not touching the rest. It's not the greatest solution, but it's better, I think, than what we have now, as it would give people more incentive to use the space knowing that the only sure sign that their idea won't be used is if Anet actually says so. If they say nothing, as Konig said, then its use is at least possible, and I think people can live with that. While I think the idea of imaginary (intellectual) property is ridiculous and any floundering about worried about it is based on fear, I understand that for the present time, at least, the space does serve a useful purpose in keeping John's page from being as cluttered as it might otherwise be. I don't want him to leave, and I know no one else does either.

Maybe it could be allowed to post a link here to a suggestion in the feedback space, but with a limit of maybe 1 per week per user (or longer, whatever works best) to keep John's page from being flooded with links. All that would be allowed to be posted would be the link and a short greeting. No guarantee of an answer to the suggestion, but at least it would give John a way to look at them more directly and users to feel like they have a decent chance of it being looked at. The suggestion itself wouldn't be here but in the feedback space. Only a link to it would be here. It's just a thought, but I wanted to share it and try to help if I could. --Nathe 02:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A limit rule would be broken. Whenever you set a limit on something, somebody will test it and go past it, and then we'd be back to the crux of the issue, but with messier solutions available. A more active presence by ANet on the Feedback space (in general, not necessarily as a rule to comment only on useless ones or something) would make less people post things, but even then somebody is going to post because their suggestion wasn't commented on and they feel butthurt.

There's no easy fix and there might not be a fix at all, but a more active staff presence (in general, not just on Feedback) would probably help. --ஸ Kyoshi 03:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If more active staff presence was possible then it would have already happened. The live team itself is a skeleton crew and they don't have the luxury of time to read through unorganized feedback and make a reply and reply to that reply and then so on... Personally I'd rather have the design team get whatever inspiration they can from the suggestions and feedback portal and not feel pressured into replying to everything someone said. The problem is the wiki users demanding replies rather than the Anet team being too busy to give one. The wiki users just needs to learn how to use the feedback portal and live with not getting a reply, and let the Anet design team do their job, so that we get a great game to play. --Lania 04:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That being the case, we'll just have to stop blowing up about things blowing up when we don't stop them first, unless John has more useful ideas (other than leaving the wiki; in case you haven't caught on, we like having you around =P). --ஸ Kyoshi 05:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

We're never gonna get proof so there's no point in asking. ...otherwise my idea would been approved years ago (auto-flagging pages as "read by anet staff"). Time to drop it and just accept this page's fate --ilr 09:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) (Edit conflict) We could also make a more organized feedback space. Since the current organizing method is to push all the gw1 suggestions into six wide and broad categories, (okay the skills get their own subcategories, but some still stick it to mechanic or an other feedback category) and there are also a plenty of outdated suggestions, I suggest some drastic reshaping of the feedback namespace. First feedback users should be able to group their suggestions together, to make suggestions to a special area easier to find. A group would also show the number of suggestions in that specific area. As an example, people who have opinions about a specific area of PvE, such as revamping Prophecies elite areas (Tombs/SF), and/or would add Titan Quests to that elite mission pool could find each other easier, discuss on the grouping page, sysops who patrol those areas could put stray sheep suggestions into a specific group, or merge similar groups of feedback. Second point would be sorting out and archiving/deleting out of date suggestions, to keep the feedback space as compact as possible. Edit: Example would be skill suggestions that were already implemented in an update, or suggestions for Team Arena or Hero Battles rebalance (not Re-implementation). These would greatly help out John and anyone else who are serious about giving feedback to Anet GWLT. --Boro 15:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

How about a vetting system? — Raine Valen 15:51, 11 Mar 2011 (UTC)

Reorganizing the space sounds good, as I'm sure there are ideas that people have that might not necessarily fit into the existing categories and subcategories. One of mine, for instance, involves native Linux support, but as there was no category or subcategory for that sort of thing, I had nowhere to place it, so I haven't. I still think that being allowed to post a link here to a suggestion in the feedback space, in combination with a reorganization of the space, could work or at least be better than what we have now. Sysops could simply remove any links that go over the limit and notify the posters in their talk pages of the policy of 1 per week (or whatever the time period is). As I said before, there wouldn't be any guarantee of John or anyone else looking at them even with this setup, I understand that, but it would allow the suggestions more visibility to the Team and make the users feel like they at least have a chance of their idea being looked at, if not responded to. Combined again with Konig's idea about Anet only responding when they know an idea can't or won't be used, and the lack of response is no longer a negative when it implies the possibility of use. I'd like to suggest at least a trial period to see how it works out. If it doesn't, we can try something else. --Nathe 18:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine, whatever makes it more organized... I was arguing similar measures for the GW2 mechanics tag (which doesn' even have proper SubCats). But let's take that discussion somewhere else since we're never gonna get anything but mixed signals from Anet on this issue. Edit2: too late, now it's here instead. whatever. --ilr 20:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So, I'll pitch in with my intent, and we'll see if that helps a bit. I'm fine with not responding to suggestions on my page, and looking at them someplace else. It probably makes things easier all around - we're a small team, and in order to try and make us as efficient as possible, I've already planned out all of our projects for this year (and some for next.) That's great for us, but not necessarily for responding to suggestions. Something that someone cares about deeply may very well be on the back-burner for a while until we have time to look at it, and that's usually not what people want to hear. The biggest thing that I'm trying to accomplish with being on the wiki is to give the Live Team a presence, for lack of a better term. I feel like it's a healthier thing for the community to know who we are and what we're about, as opposed to being anonymous nerf-demons. To that end, I feel like it's a bit more productive if my page is a question & answer/social deal. I don't want to be undermining the structure of how things are supposed to work, here. John Stumme 22:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is 2 cents from someone who was actively involved in setting up the feedback space to begin with (btw Nathe and the rest of you all had the options to get involved at the time..) Currently the system is set up to be very organized, and has required a fairly complex set of templates etc to make it work. Adding more categories is not necessarily going to make it any better, as it all comes down to how well user use it. Every suggestion has the possibility to be added into multiple categories. The fact that users don't read and follow instructions is what leads to it being what you consider "bad" there is no way you are going to change that. If you feel the current suggestions need better organization, then my suggestion to you is to go through the current 2200+ suggestions and get them categorized into the most appropriate categories that already exist. Guild Wars Wiki:Feedback organization -- Wyn talk 01:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The feedback space is actually rather well organized, if you know how to use it. While each of the categories is broad, they are straightforward and even allow you to specify two subcategories. Heck, each idea can actually be in 2 major categories. And since they are sortable, you can see all the suggestions made after a certain date (like a game update). In addition, if the feedback is named right, it should give the devs an idea of what they are reading, kinda like a good forum post title.

We've utilized a series of complex templates for a number of reasons. First, they give us some powerful organization tools for sorting suggestions into certain areas and lists. Second, we want to promote the idea that users should be invested in the feedback namespace; we do this by requiring the readers to follow some steps and read the rules. Third, by having users intentionally do specific things, it should make it easier and faster for the devs to read through suggestions.

If we truly need to have more categories, then bring it up in another section; this area is for the general usage and intent, not necessarily the details.

John, we created the feedback space to aid you by pre-sorting suggestions, giving you previews for each suggestion (date, subcats and title), and dividing up suggestions so they aren't cluttered or overly discussed or flamed by others. --JonTheMon 02:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I was involved at the time... It didn't change the outcome though. The only purpose it served was a slightly more organized Bug-reporting forum. IE: right back to the topic that started this. Where's the evidence actual ideas were ever used? ....I can point directly to several cases where issues (like Ranger pets and Rit summoning and you name it...) were raised directly on a dev's talk page going as far back as Izzy's days and then a patch later addressed it. But where's the evidence that everyone else isn't just daydreaming that they can directly provide solutions Anet would actively seek out? Greener said it best:
"Intriguing, but perhaps too tough to tally. Some suggestions are repeats of others; some are... poor <...> so we can't weight that value... Hold on, was your question rhetorical?". I'm starting to think it was; whether I realized it or not. No one spends years in design school or TechSupport & then QA depts. just to use someone else's completely untested ideas. So maybe that entire region of the feedback equation is the problem here? It's resulting in massive amounts of extra work that should have been "Vetted" instead like Raine suggested? ...I'm not saying they pursued this whole thing in the first place just to Placate us (well maybe Regina & other CR's did) b/c I know O'Brien did this for a reason and he wouldn't lie to us, we can have faith in that. But its scope definitely needs to be refined, especially once Gw2 kicks in and the population of the community potentially doubles or triples. --ilr 03:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I would love to explore the idea of a vetting or rating system for feedback, but I'm afraid it simply wouldn't have any legitimacy if it was done by players only. It would also lead to massive amounts of hurt feelings and trolling, and suddenly we'd have a feedback-vxwiki. elix Omni 12:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, why not move old or outdated suggestions to a form of archive, basically a new category, within the main feedback areas? The suggestions would still exist for people to view, re-use (should the game move in a direction that would permit it), link to, and comment on. Layout would be almost exactly the same as the other categories, since its merely an extension of the feedback space, and if any suggestion was mislabeled as archived, it could easily be moved back to its original position. If the archive might get too crowded (believeable in alot of the GW1 space), the archive could have subcategories (like for pvp skills and balance stuff) to keep things organized, or a new column could be used in the archive zone displaying both of its relevant categories (for sorting purposes) instead of one. Then you dont need to "vet" the system.

As for subcategories, yea, the feedback main categories are very broad. It keeps things simple for a lot of people that aren't wiki-savvy. However, nothings saying that someone else might go through and categorize them better. It wouldn't take too long, actually, as someone could definitely categorize more suggestions than are made in a day, and it doesn't have to be a marathon of a project either, just something they do in free-time (not like those suggestions are going anywhere...). A new tag could be made for players to help any recategorization; basically it would only need to be the move tag but with a few changes, basically "This suggestion has been tagged to be moved from category A subcategory a to category B subcategory b." Then if you throw a grouping tag in there, people can check that group to see all the tagged pages and review them so as to get the proper action. Checking links so as to not make a ton of broken red links would confound it a bit, but the majority of suggestions have little to none in the means of linking throughout the wikispace. So yes, I'd say we need more subcategories. To help teach the general population on properly categorizing on their own, a help page could be made (ideally, and linked to either in the new suggestion page or in the feedback:main, but it could always be added into the getting started page) that could list all existing (and new) subcategories within the feedback space and accurately describe the type of ideas that would be placed under them. Its not a fix all, but it would help.

For John's feedback talk page I think the idea that linking suggestions on his page might be the best bet. It keeps most discussion over that suggestion on the relevant talk page and keeps his page much cleaner. If he or any other developer wants to comment on it they can, that simple.--Neithan Diniem 15:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A couple points. By default, the ideas are sorted by date, so there is a sort of archiving method there: just stop reading past a certain date. Also, there is a help page that lists all the categories and sub-categories; it's linked at the bottom of the page they are supposed to read through, Feedback:Getting started --JonTheMon 16:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

“why not move old or outdated suggestions to a form of archive” – Last time I checked, the template had a resolved parameter that marked feedback as resolved, i.e. archived, and prevented it from being listed. Guess that is what you are looking for.

In fact the whole feedback namespace was quite thoroughly thought-out. Of course it is not as good for users as System X and not as good for the developers as System Y, but don't forget that this is still a wiki; and by no means a wiki is meant for such things. I believe that the feedback namespace is done nearly in the best way possible on a wiki, and there is no problem with it. The actual problem is both that users do not see the need to invest the time to write good suggestions (or even write them in the correct place to begin with), and that the developers are not using it the way we expected they would when we established it.

Nevertheless I object any idea to change the way the feedback namespace is set up, because it is done well now, and any additional work that is put in it might make the system better for the users, but won't change the fact that it still needs attention by the developers. And we can't change that. poke | talk 18:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I only see two possibilities: start aggressively enforcing use of the feedback space only for suggestions, to the point of banning repeat offenders, or simply abandon it altogether. elix Omni 18:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

First off, the resolved parameter is not included in the text above the new suggestion edit box, so not many of the people that make suggestions know of it. Secondly, on the template page itself that parameter isn't named in a way that seems clear. Its name suggests that the parameter is used for a problem that needs fixing, and has then been resolved. That is perfectly suitable for a bug fix suggestion, not so much for a new content idea. You don't "resolve" a new content suggestion, it becomes obsolete. However, since we cant change the parameter's name, it needs better definition. That brings me to the third; "Set this parameter to mark this suggestion are solved and exclude it from the standard lists." isn't even correct English, so I can see why it might be confusing for any one reading it. So if more archiving of outdated suggestions is wanted, perhaps this definition needs to be refined on the template page to better describe its function. It needs to encompass both use as a bug fix archive and as a obsolete suggestion archive. Adding a overview on it's function to the new suggestion page's text might also assist in getting the word out on it, either by placing it in the text above the edit box or within the template itself as a hidden text next to the parameter. I read both the getting started and the template page when I started using the feedback space, and Id like to believe that I have the capability to use the wiki well enough to understand most of what I saw there. However, I did not know about the archive function, so I find it could be well within reason that many others did/do not as well. Since it exists, an archive page would be unnecessary, yes. However I ask, do archived suggestions also disappear from the user's feedback space? As for a comment by Wyn on my talk page, I know about GW1 having numerous subcategories. That which I said above was more aimed at GW2 and the cluttered mess some of the main categories have become.--Neithan Diniem 18:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"I would love to explore the idea of a vetting or rating system for feedback, but I'm afraid it simply wouldn't have any legitimacy if it was done by players only. It would also lead to massive amounts of hurt feelings and trolling" -- Isn't that what we have already?... along with extra spam heaped on top? And you other guys could try re-organizing it all ya want, but poke's dead-on here: "there is no problem with it. The actual problem is both that users do not see the need to invest the time to write good suggestions and that the developers are not using it the way we expected they would when we established it" ...The purpose itself is a mess b/c everyone's competing with every one else to get their idea noticed. And no one gives a shit when the other guy gets ignored nomatter how good his idea might be. John already showed us the kind of feedback they want... The devs having a presence here has always been about that, to see a non-specific consensus and address it their own way. And when players feel like Anet's recognizing the problem, Micros go up and there's nothing sinister about that, that's how all business used to work back in the "good old days". Players don't have to be listened to individually; which is what the suggestion space tried (and failed) to do. It's time we just ripped the band-aid off already and put on our big-boy pants here. Once we do that, we can get on with modeling its purpose towards results where "the final product" of the suggestion space is something Anet can-and-will use. --ilr 22:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In general, polls are a good way to gauge the community reaction to changes in the game. IMO polls and feedback/suggestions are completely different. Anet have said they read suggestions on the wiki and guru for ideas/inspiration. For me, that's good enough. As long as they get ideas for future updates from the feedback space or Guru's suggestion space, i don't care if there is perceived "presence" or not. Like Ilr said, people are selfish and some try to get their own idea noticed no matter what. If we can create polls here based on top concerns that the community feels strongly about, and post it on the main page of the wiki, we can create WIK survey type of data for Anet that would take only a small amount of time to interpret. Survey questions can be decided by the wiki community, and then build the survey using surveymonkey etc, which allows easy compilation of data. That way everyone will have a equal voice and mitigate in some level the effect of people with the loudest voices. This will also allow easy access to surveys with out the need or use of wiki codes for the survey taker.--Lania 22:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So, we trade the organized system we have now, where your suggestion in the feedback space is as likely as any other one to get read, for a system where a small minority decide what the devs read? That's gonna end well. Re:polls - so, we utilize a non-wiki system for generating feedback on a wiki. Right. --JonTheMon 01:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The wiki system isn't efficient for creating feedback information that is easy to use by Anet. Either we stick with the status quo, or we try to use a different system that doesn't involve the wiki. The wiki is great for documenting encyclopedic information but isn't a good system to try to gauge community opinion. There is a reason why every time a wiki system is used to try to vote on something like builds, it ends in a fiery death from trolling, and PvX is a breeding ground for trolls. When surveys are used, the wiki can then document the survey results which would insulate the wiki from discussion/voting/trolling in an attempt to rank the feedback. It's not a "good" solution, but if we want to document community opinions then we either abandon the effort completely or try something else. Like Poke said, the feedback portal is the efficient it can be within the limitations of a wiki. But even with that, it is still to cumbersome to add feedback for the layman wiki user and it is time consuming to read all the feedback. --Lania 02:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I just want to echo what poke said - the current system is pretty much as good as it's going to get. We can either learn to use it better and hope ANet uses it better or try small tweaks to improve minor issues. Reworking the entire system just to have ANet ignore it again is a complete waste of time. Using offwiki bullshit to do polls or some shit just sounds awful. -Auron 03:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I wasn't suggesting polls either. Just using the example to show they might have other expectations when it comes to feedback. "Using the current system better" might require a lot of consolidation and even some collective advocacy in order to compete with that example. --ilr 08:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'd like to offer Thedukesd's rant on this page as an example of John Q. Everyman's opinion of the feedback space right now. elix Omni 10:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So, I think in essence it's this... Some wiki users wants a bigger voice, be heard by Anet, and thus a guaranteed response from them. Anet wants "community" feedback for major changes to the game not individual feedback, hence the reason for the WiK survey. I think Anet does use the feedback portal for inspiration but when it comes to large changes, you kinda get that sense that CM's are going through guru and other fan forums instead of the wiki to see what the community in general thinks. The wiki system just isn't good for community feedback because it is run by and edited by a limited community that bothers with using wiki code. It also makes it very much easier to "harass" developers and other users whenever someone has a strong opinion (or obsession) about something... So in essence, it's just better to ban game suggestions and individual feedback on talk pages of the devs, like we've been doing, enforce it more stringently, block people for repeat offenders, and abandon any effort to "revamp" anything on the wiki. In the end, there is just no way for a wiki system to compete with surveys, polls, or even forums when it comes to gauging the general GW community. The wiki should just stick with what it does best... documentation... and just continue to "document" individual feedback in the feedback portal and not bother with trying to give everyone a equal "voice" like you can with well designed polls and surveys. --Lania 17:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. G R E E N E R 18:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup. elix Omni 18:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Very much so. - Infinite - talk 18:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So, just give up, then? What about my idea about the links? Others in this discussion have concurred with it, and as I said, we could at least do a trial period to see how well it works. Let's at least do that much, please, before just giving up. There is always a way to achieve any goal, if you put your mind to it and think hard enough.

-- Nathe 00:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the current system needs to change. From all accounts, it appears to do what is was designed to do: generate and organize feedback that ANet can use to catalyze their own creative processes. I don't think any of use should be judging what the devs should (or should not) review... (except, of course, to fix any wiki issues on the page).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nathe, [1]. elix Omni 01:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, but do the devs know how to get there? John himself admitted he's a newbie to using a wiki. Nathe 04:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they know, because Lania's point is extremely strong: "The wiki should just stick with what it does best... documentation... and just continue to "document" individual feedback in the feedback portal and not bother with trying to give everyone a equal "voice" like you can with well designed polls and surveys." I'm sure ArenaNet patrols the Feedback space already and if not, hey, that's cool too. - Infinite - talk 11:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, I have to say I'd be very surprised if John (and the rest of Anet) was not aware of the Feedback area, as I have personally had discussions with the Live Team while we were setting it up and provided them with detailed instructions on how to access it. While this was before John took Linsey's place on the team, I just do not believe that this information would not have been shared. Posting links on John's page is just going to lead to more of this same crap, because if he chooses not to comment, there will be cries that Anet doesn't care, if he comments positively, then there are going to be expectations, if he comments negatively there is going to be drama. I know for a fact that Linsey used it as she did actually comment on a couple of suggestions. I prefer the status quo. Allow them to use it as they see fit. Don't expect comments on individual suggestions, and go and enjoy the game. -- Wyn talk 12:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are you making predictions about the future when it hasn't even been tried yet? I did list some limitations and what could be done to enforce them, and they could be added to if need be. And in this proposal with the links, Anet would only respond if they knew they wouldn't or couldn't use a suggestion, and only to say so, as Konig initially suggested. There would be no positive responses. That makes the lack of a response a positive rather than a negative, because it allows for the possibility of use without explicitly saying that it will or will not be used. Please reread that if you're just skimming through this. Nathe 12:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"what could be done to enforce them," We (that is: the community) can not actuallt enforce anything onto ArenaNet. Some people are expecting us to, though. We'll have to disappoint those people. - Infinite - talk 13:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to enforcing Anet, but users who try to post multiple suggestion links within the time limit. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that, thought I was. Nathe 18:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"And in this proposal with the links, Anet would only respond if they knew they wouldn't or couldn't use a suggestion, and only to say so, as Konig initially suggested." I meant this line, my bad, should've quoted it immediately. The keywords are Anet and would. They are expectations we can not enforce on ArenaNet or its staff. The wiki is a free place, if regular contributors are not enforced to reply to anything specifically, then neither should such staff members have to. In short; ArenaNet does not have to do anything. - Infinite - talk 06:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In this scenario, they would agree to that limited form of response, not be forced to do it. Nathe 16:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

But you'd still bind them to some form of agreement. So that's already not possible. No one on this wiki is under any agreement (save copyright; and before you open the book on that, even Gaile told you not to go there (at least not on her talk)), nor should ArenaNet be. Again, the wiki is a free place. And to be honest, you are slightly over-expectant on this all. - Infinite - talk 20:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

page break

Question, did anet make the categorizes for the feedback space or did wiki users? why i ask is i think it would be useful if anet made the categorizes because then they could direct the feedback space to areas of the game that they want feed back from. john already said that he has most of what is going to happen for this year in guild wars1 planed out. we know that winds of change is the next big thing coming down the pipeline why not focus the feedback space on ideas/suggestions, that improve factions (because that's were the content is taking place) i feel like anet has a grate opportunity here to make the feedback namespace be directed in the direction they want to bring the game. the live team can only do so much. which is something the community has to realize. the live team doesn't have the resources of guild wars2.... also i always thought that something like the thumbs up or down system seen on playstation's feedback space would work well. seeing as it doesn't tie any name ect. to that information.- Zesbeer 13:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We worked with Emily and Linsey at the time. They wanted the GW2 categories to remain broad and open ended, as so little was known about the game at that time. And while we have been given some information about the game, without actually playing it, I don't see a practical purpose in making them any more specific yet. As for GW1 categories, they were laid out to cover the primary areas of the game, without being "campaign" specific. Probably the easiest way to implement something like that into the current system would be to add a "campaign" variable though I'm not sure exactly what that would entail in the mechanics, poke would be better able to answer that. Anet said no to any sort of comment system, whether it was just read/not read, or thumbs up or down etc. They are not willing to "promise" that sort of time commitment. -- Wyn talk 14:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"CM's are only going thru Guru/FB. The wiki isn't as good as X/Y/Z for feedback" ...what's this defeatist crap? Watch the CR panel they just had at PAX. The CR department is directly under Marketing, which already had negative connotations as soon as the question was asked,... and it's pretty darn understaffed (1 person per major language) for a company with 200 some odd people. The key piece of information though: They play favorites. I think Zes raises a good point about opportunity here. Everyone else giving up right now, is it b/c this is all over a game that's about to be replaced? Okay fine. But that doesn't absolve us all of the challenges right around the corner with GW2. ...Could vetting alone add the necessary Validation we'd need? Probably not b/c it's basically just a petition that's easy to commit voter fraud on. Again, Anet plays favorites. So why not build a committee of favorites and have them do the vetting? --ilr 00:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with ANet playing favorites; it's their game. I don't support this wiki attempting to decide for others which ideas are more important. PvX has a system designed to rate things and it's easy to see from their experience that it's not as simple as "let's have a vote." If people want to setup a new site to sponsor some collective set of vetted ideas, I wouldn't have a problem with this wiki including a link from the main feedback page.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not read the entire text above however, perhaps we should consider making the feedback space considerably more user friendly. 108.75.73.62 04:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Granted I mighta been over the top there but... "I don't support this wiki attempting to decide for others which ideas are more important." ...you're not okay with doing what Regina was doing from day1? (deciding who's feedback is important off personal "tone" no less). It's already been happening, ppl been tagging other ppl's feedback for deletion all this time with no redeeming consolidation. That ship's sailed. --ilr 08:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow, Ilr. What does Regina have to do with this? She hasn't been active on the wiki in months. And who's deleting which articles? I just reviewed about 4 weeks of the Special:Log/delete and can't find any deletions from Feedback that were other than user request or unnecessary redirects.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think haggling over credibility is gonna move the discussion forward. Ok I wasn't clear but I'm not sure how to be more clear about it that there's no one here anymore to round up the "best" feedback and deliver it to the proper channels and that's probably the main reason they aren't getting used. So which is better? A few key problems and issues being identified by panel and atleast being presented? Or everyone's stuff getting zero priority and thus nothing is confirmed as read? --ilr 09:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As stated some odd times above, elsewhere, everywhere; this is a wiki. A place where information is being documented, which is the primary goal. I think a feedback space is already quite royal a gift, but taking it any further than that is counter-productive. Users will only be here to leech information and to speculate on the feedback space. So in my honest opinion, just make the Feedback space more user-friendly for new proposals and leave every other aspect proposed be. This is not the place. - Infinite - talk 10:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We made the feedback space user unfriendly on purpose. If it is any easier, we will get nothing but spam/junk suggestions that absolutely no one cares about. The entire problem is no one cares to read the instructions. If any of you have ideas of how to make the instructions better, fine. Changing the system is counterproductive. -- Wyn talk 11:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't know that Wyn, because I don't think you've ever tried. You don't know the future, so please don't try to predict it. Here's another possibility: A checkbox system, but which would only indicate that a suggestion had been read, not whether it would be used or not. And to avoid the issue of it being a bot, each checked box would also be signed and timestamped by the dev who read it. Stop looking down on people, Wyn, please, because that's what it sometimes feels like, at least to me. Please try to be more understanding of people and of differences in thought and opinion, and realize that not everyone thinks as you do. More people would probably read the instructions if they were easier to follow. Infinite, almost everything that can be documented in the game has by now been documented, save for a few things here and there, but largely 95% of the work is done now. So what happens when there is nothing left to document? Just asking, because once that part of this place's purpose is complete, what's next? Nathe 16:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

At that stage people need to sort out all the flaws and inconsistencies here. 95% is not even close to where GWW is at. - Infinite - talk 17:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Wyn's comment above this is exactly the kind of thing that causes many players to be unheard. "We deliberately made the feedback space user unfriendly," (so that we can control who adds suggestions to it and we can make certain that only people we approve are heard- I would like to thank you for making my very valid point for me). Yea way to go what a democracy (yea yea I know this wiki is not a democracy it is instead a way of keeping the entire community from making suggestions because the only suggestions that matter are the 5 people who understand wth those instructions say). 108.75.73.62 21:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No one is prevented from offering suggestions. Support and postal mail still work. (Source for striking out: Official Terms of Use → "we cannot accept or review any unsolicited ideas or suggestions that are sent to us outside of the Guild Wars Wiki")

On the wiki, it should not be easy to add a random page to the feedback space; the system is designed to make people think about their idea before posting. The point isn't to be user unfriendly; it's to ensure that the worst nonsense is filtered out while making it possible for anyone to add an idea (as long as they register).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

" "We deliberately made the feedback space user unfriendly," (so that we can control who adds suggestions to it and we can make certain that only people we approve are heard...)" At no point what so ever does anyone approve who can register an account on the wiki, go to the feedback section, read the getting started page, and post a suggestion. There are reasons things aren't always made "user friendly." What if driving a car was as user friendly as playing mario cart on the Wii? You'd end up with 6 and 7 yr olds smackin' into telephone poles left and right. The wiki is no different. The rules in general are not complicated and are easily understood (other than the resolved variable I talked about waaay up above ^). This makes it that if a user is responsible enough to actually read the getting started page (basically the instructional manual for building a suggestion), then they will naturally be capable of posting better suggestions. The last thing we need is to overly simplify the process. The only things that would lead to are suggestions posted in disregard of the proper format (which many of you developed and agreed upon), repeats of existing suggestions, suggestions placed in the wrong locations (Category talk pages frequently get "is this the correct place to post this? +suggestion"s), and then those that are abandoned by the user. As the process is, the user at least has a little responsibility to their suggestion, from posting to maintaining. If a person simply has the minuscule tidbit of responsibility to read the getting started page, most of these problems are greatly averted. All the rest are just flukes of the system that need to be ironed out after observing and correcting the cause.--Neithan Diniem 23:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

omg... I was being sarcastic. My point was inherent in the fact that he made that statement at all. I was just expounding on what I heard(between the lines of the comment he made). I am also aware of the fact that I misquoted him (also sarcasm in trying to repeat what was between the lines). I apologize if you took it seriously. 108.75.73.62 00:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

@ip welcome to the internet joking+sarcasm=/=internet - Zesbeer 00:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) can someone summerize were we are at in this disscustion? i feel like we are beating a dead horse on some fronts... thanks- Zesbeer 00:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the people don't think changing the feedback space would be productive. A few folks are still throwing out ideas for minor improvements, but a complete revamp is out of the picture. elix Omni 01:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nathe, I DO know that because that is what we had before, a system where anyone could post anything, and users could change stuff as they pleased. It was not only an administrative nightmare, it lead to more bans and interpersonal conflict than any other single area of this wiki. It was also all for nothing since ArenaNet could not legally use any of the suggestions posted there. Please don't tell me what I know and what I don't know. Also, Anet has said in no uncertain terms they will not add any sort of mandatory (for them) comment system, whether it's check boxes, with or without signatures and timestamps or some other form of acknowledgment. They simply do not have the resources, and you've been told that over and over and over yet you seem to believe that if you say it often enough the reality will change into something different. Expecting them to tell you whether a suggestion is going to be used or not just proves once again that you live in a fantasy world that is somewhere separate from reality. If that is me "looking down" on you then I guess everyone who has ever told you to get real with your expectations is doing the same.

As for the idea that we somehow restrict feedback posting to only those we "approve" of, that's utter nonsense. Anyone who is a registered user of the wiki can post a suggestion. They all have an equal chance to get heard if they read and follow the instructions and do it properly within the system that has been developed. We (the community) expect users to take responsibility for their suggestions. To listen and respond to other users' comments on the suggestions talk pages, to monitor changes in the game in regards to whether their suggestions remain relevant to the current status of the game, etc. It is not up to you or I or any other group/individual to approve of a suggestion prior to it being read by ArenaNet, (which is why a "vetting" system just won't work) so how anyone can think that this is in some way discriminatory is beyond my comprehension.

And TEF, if you read the GW.com website, you will see that no user suggestions will be accepted by ArenaNet via email or snail mail, so you might want to strike that comment from your above post.

@108.... she if you don't mind. And as I said, if you have an idea of how to make the instructions better, I'd love to hear them. The group of us that were interested enough in providing the Feedback space at all spent 3 months designing the system, and discussing/debating the best way to present it to the community. It's easy for people who don't bother to get involved to criticize. -- Wyn talk 04:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough on that. I just seem to recall Raine saying long ago that just because something is hard doesn't mean one shouldn't attempt it. I'm paraphrasing, to be sure, but I think you understand. And again you misread me. I said in my first idea above that Anet would only respond if they know a suggestion can't be used, and obviously in that case only in the negative. I don't know how you can misread me so many times, but you do. It also seems to me that you could be a bit less overprotective of the space and more willing to accept that it has flaws and that they can be dealt with if we choose to do so. You could also talk to people a bit more nicely whether they agree with you or not. I don't think I've ever seen you talk to anyone in a way that wasn't overly brusque. That tends to put people off and make them less receptive to what you have to say. People (most rational ones, that is) would listen to you more and argue with you less if you came across much nicer than you often seem to do. Your current tone only antagonizes people. Please adjust it and you may find you get through to others more than you think. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know it would make a difference with me, at the very least. Nathe 17:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

@Wyn, I would like to state first that at no point did I intend my sarcasm to become a dig at you, it was more intended to show how such a comment could be interpreted. I do however have a suggestion for this issue and I thank you all in advance for considering it.

Perhaps, it would be feasible to create a feedback "tutorial" (a sample feedback page(which also could be used as a template if certain things were "copy/pasted" into the correct area) which is placed near/on the update section of the main page.

My point, just make the feedback section available to all for use. Make it easier to understand, (for those of us that have a hard time understanding complicated instructions - this is where my sarcasm came in. I know you didn't say "we pick and choose who gives feedback," however the state of the feedback space does in very literal Fact say that even though not in so many words.

We all lose sight of what can be said through inference(the whole purpose of my sarcasm above). 108.75.73.62 17:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Anet would only respond if they know a suggestion can't be used, and obviously in that case only in the negative." Copy-paste: ArenaNet doesn't have to respond, so they won't, because they're working on more important things. We also can't tell ArenaNet to repond. This entire discussion just cycles. - Infinite - talk 18:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A quick note, My suggestion sort of caters to all around as it does not require a change to the feedback space (big breath) and could possibly make it tons easier to use. I have many ideas on how to implement this and if somebody with greater wiki-fu than I is willing to discuss these, I am willing to take this to their user talk. Just let me know. 108.75.73.62 18:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The text might be improved, but the process should remain the same. Having users read the rules before creating a page creates investment. --JonTheMon 18:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then create the template on the rules page. still a feasible idea. 108.75.73.62 18:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't need that. Following the rules and process automatically creates the templates for you. You still have to fill them out, but there is also a help page for that. --JonTheMon 18:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Aye, your method is do not change anything I respect that. It seems to me that the conversation here (I thought) was to discuss how to make this easier for others.

Some people come here, and foible about trying to figure out how to use the wiki-language and get trolled, people come on here and are considered trolls for not being able to understand the process.

Some people inherently understand the process.

While I respect you and your pov, I think that a change is necessary to make the feedback space available to all.

No change does not do that so I have to disagree with you.

Change is necessary, and I think change here should be tested because the GW2 wiki could benefit from such change. I can possibly see the same type of system and argument being ported over to there and I believe that it would be better to resolve this here. However, I have compromised my idea and amended it, give some rope from your side yea? (be flexible- there are grey areas). 108.75.73.62 18:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Infinite, I was only referring to the fact that Wyn said I was asking for them to give any kind of response positive or negative, when I was in fact not doing so. Just a very limited negative response in a limited situation. I was just trying to point out how she was consistently misreading what I said. But anyway, I'll accept your point. Nathe 18:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

108, have you tried to use the feedback namespace? At the top of every page it helps you create, it walks you through what to do. --JonTheMon 18:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Jon yes indeed I have, but what I am doing is looking at the situations like, Rogueonion. and all of the other situations that may have been avoided through an easier to approach (for wiki-novices) way to get their ideas across I think that perhaps had the feedback space been easier to approach, he would have been able to get his ideas across without all of the argument, trolling, personal attacks, and hate (all of which was palpable through words) for him because he was unable to figure it out.

Consider the amount of trolling that can be avoided if only the feedback space was available and easy to approach for wiki-novices.

Remember, some people do not learn new languages well, also that it is harder for them to do so while constantly under attack. So I vote for a change. If it cuts the amount of misplaced data/comments/ideas/trolling that would be a good thing at least from my perspective.

Let us leave it to ANET to decide which feedback is viable for them.

@the same time we/you could restrict the feedback space from trolling with heavy consequences(this could be implemented as part of the change via a warning, or some other wiki rule). 108.75.73.62 18:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As soon as you say "you shouldn't give your feedback that way; do it this way instead" shit happens. That's just the reality of it. And especially if you say you can't leave feedback on dev pages. That just sets off more crap. --JonTheMon 19:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. This is the whole reason for my vote to make this easier to do. Instead of having to chase away users who may have valid feedback let us give them the chance to give their opinion easily. I have spoken with Rogueonion (in game) and had the feedback space been easier to approach (whether his ideas were accepted by ANET or not) he would have used it and dropped the issue.

Instead, he went unheard (as do many players) because the feedback space is too complicated to be used as is(by wiki-novices). We have to keep in mind that not everybody knows the things that we know. Shoot I am willing to bet that my understanding of the wiki and how it works is quite limited - doing so I have to say that I agree with him, the feedback space is too complex for wiki-novices to use.

I also have to say that I will withhold any of my own ideas because of the way that wiki-novices are treated here. You guys are brutal to them/us and its disgusting. 108.75.73.62 19:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This is getting rather large, should we continue this in another spot? 108.75.73.62 19:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @108. If you are going to spend the time to rehash the same arguments others have made above... at least take the time to read it as well. --Lania 20:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That could have been put more nicely, Lania. Please read what I said to Wyn in my last post here. It applies to you sometimes as well. Not all the time, since I've seen you respond better before, but sometimes. Most rational people respond more favorably more often when they're clearly treated well and made to feel like they're appreciated and wanted even if they're being disagreed with. People, even me, can live with a "no" answer if it's delivered in a kind enough way. Part of the reason I've kept my own issues going was because of how I was treated. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that for me, how someone says what they say is as much a part of how likely I'll listen to them as what someone says. But anyway, that's going off-track now. I'd agree with 108 that this convo could be continued in another place to keep this page from getting any bigger. Nathe 20:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

@Lania, I see what you are saying, however if this many people have the same arguments(however slightly different) to the degree that this page is this long and it has become a rehash every time somebody adds something then perhaps the problem should be addressed and fixed instead of being pushed to the side and dismissed with an "it's fine," wave of the hand. Obviously it isn't. Fine, that is. If this many people are discussing it, somebody with actual wiki knowledge should work out a fix.

I mean, if this many people are having a problem with it and it is being rehashed so much than what you guys really are saying is "Do not use it if you cannot figure it out," in other words you are choosing who can and cannot make feedback to a game we all purchased. Be fair give us our voice and let us speak for ourselves instead of limiting the feedback space to those who are more proficient at wiki than the rest of us. 108.75.73.62 21:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, how is the feedback space too complicated, given the instructions? I really don't care if the user doesn't read the instructions. They are there for a reason. --JonTheMon 21:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Jon, the point I am trying to make is that the feedback space is not A. Easily available/to get to. B. The instructions are very ambiguous. I suggested a route to take that would fix both of these issues. A. make the feedback space easy to find by placing it prominently on the main page. and B. create a feedback template/form (which includes the rules) that can be used by just reading and replacing instructions. C. I made a third suggestion that trolling be heavily punished for the feedback area. I also suggested that this is a good place to test such a setup possibly for the GW2 wiki. I think that this simple solution could solve a plethora of arguments/misplaced suggestions/trolling as well as the many situations mentioned above. I fail to see why this is so hard, it A. does not change the feedback space, or the method too much it just allows for easier access (and if you do not want it easily accessible you are in fact saying you are choosing who can give feedback- that is the only reason it should be kept the way it is, so others cannot give feedback). 108.75.73.62 21:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

How is it "not" easy to get to. The link is the 4th item down on the navigation menu on the left side of the screen. and it's on the bottom right hand corner of the main page. From there instructions are no longer than 1-2 page long. It creates a template for you, so all you have to do is fill it in. +Trolling barely exists within the feedback portal. The only place it was rampant was in the developer talk pages. --Lania 21:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) A) Propose a better location for feedback at the mainpage editcopy. There is already a link in the topmost navbox at the left. B) If you don't have people read the rules before they make a page, they won't read the rules. C) That's a side issue to the main discussion (also, this system was designed to reduce trolling, and it has). Other) We do not want this system at GW2W. This is a wiki and is horrid for accepting suggestions. --JonTheMon 21:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You do not think that the first place a person looks for the feedback section would be in the updates section? I do not read the far left and far right margins on webpages (mostly adverts) so gj placing those in the spots that 98% (sarcastic conjecture) of humanity would avoid looking. That addressed, B. I still think that there should be a premade template which would be at the bottom of the rules page so that wiki-novices can easily have access to making feedback (most of whom only want to give their feedback and avoid the rest of (waves hands widely apart) THIS. 108.75.73.62 21:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologize that read a tad bit harsher than I had intended. I was going for something sarcastic and humorous. I meant to say I found those 2 spots. but I still think that it should be moved to the Updates section (only because most feedback is not about the community, it is however about updates. I stand by the template part- simplify it and I bet you have less instances like rogueonion etc. 108.75.73.62 22:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to see "reactions" about the updates just look at the talk section of each update by date, or better yet, go to a forum like guru. The "feedback portal" is for suggestions not "reactions". If we moved it to the updates, made it easier to use, we'll get tons of reactionary feedbacks about the update that is either just plain QQing or trolling. If you want to simplify the process then go ahead but you need to propose changes and give examples of what needs to be changed in detail instead of telling others to simplify it. Because at this point, I'm not sure how it can be simpler. FYI: Anet doesn't read the wiki except the feedback portal, but they do read guru. --Lania 00:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment about the "Tutorial" idea. We DID have such a thing set up. The problem was, that people started just changing the Example suggestion we set up to be "their" suggestion without doing any of the rest of it. The example eventually just got deleted when it was decided that it was creating more of a problem than a fix. -- Wyn talk 01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It is ok. I get it I totally understand. If it were me I would also choose to deny others the right to submit feedback to ANET. Keeps the game from being ruined(though one could also say that by limiting the amount of feedback you do the same thing). Fin. 108.75.73.62 01:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Your assertion that we are "denying" anyone access is mind boggling. As Jon already pointed out, there is a direct link to the feedback portal in the navigation box on the left of every page, there is a link to Community feedback on the mainpage. It's not our fault that people will not read the instructions. Anyone who is a registered user of the wiki can submit any number of suggestions they wish, and since registering takes all of about 15 seconds, it's readily available to everyone that visits. Why don't you give clear, well reasoned bullet points of how we are "denying others the right to submit feedback to Anet." that haven't been shown to be false so we can address the rest of your concerns? -- Wyn talk 02:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wyn, you're being trolled. Let it go. elix Omni 03:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:108: Cool story bro. --JonTheMon 03:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Far too much talk for me to read through atm, and I'm aware I'm likely being redundant, but a lot of what I quickly scanned through may be circumvented by placing Help:Creating a game suggestion page as one of the "Quick reference links" when pages are made, rather than as a small link created by {{feedback user createsuggestion}}. I know that I struggle to recall its location when I edit feedback suggestions for people. The other help pages don't offer nice categories. G R E E N E R 05:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

When you create a new suggestion the text above the edit box gives you the categories. Also, it's the very last link on Getting Started. --JonTheMon 12:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added the link to the preload template as Greener suggested. -- Wyn talk 14:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Felix, you said this before - I don't think this problem will go away if we just ignore it. Yet lately it seems you're contradicting yourself by arguing the opposite. Just trying to understand the shift in position here, is all. Nathe 15:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with doing that. I used to think that there needs to be a better way to do this but I was convinced by many people like Jon, Auron, Felix, TEF etc that the wiki should stick with documentation and focus on that instead of trying to catalog feedback. --Lania 20:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem I spoke of is John Stumme's talk page, not the feedback namespace. elix Omni 02:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You guys go ahead and do what you want with the space. It doesn't really matter to me anymore. Arguing about silly things like this on a wiki is just... childish... and I don't want to do it anymore. Nathe 17:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood me, I think. I was saying that I was the one doing much of the arguing, and that it was childish of me to do so. There are more important things. Having death walk into your life as it's just recently done in mine and slap you in the face will show you that. Nathe 18:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the above mountain of discussion

As someone who was intimately involved in the design and creation of just about every iteration of a suggestion space on this wiki, I felt I should chime in with a couple simple observations about the mountain above. First and foremost, poke was right, there was a ton of thought that went into the design of the current feedback space. Wyn rightly mentioned that it took us months to design the feedback space, but what's important to know is that relatively little of that time was spent actually writing code or creating templates (not to belittle the herculean efforts put into the space by our wiki gurus at all), the vast majority of that time was spent discussing the purpose, organization, and operation of the feedback space. We created mountains of discussions just like the above on a daily basis. For months. So it is with no uncertainty that I tell you guys that nearly every concern about the feedback space raised above was already discussed, at length, in some shape or form during the original creation process. And yes, I've read everything above. Case in point of Nathe's idea above of having ArenaNet staff mark a suggestion as unfeasible. We did not discuss this exact idea during the creation of the feedback space, but we did discuss the idea of having the devs mark a page as "read". We even had the idea of a page automatically getting checked off as read the minute a dev user visited a page. All of this was scrapped for one simple reason: ANet didn't want it. The word we got direct from Linsey, Emily and other ANet staff was that they did not want to make any representation that they had read a specific page. So, if they won't agree to something as simple as an automatic check on a page that a dev visits, why would they agree to rating a page as unfeasible? The answer is they won't, so until we hear otherwise from them, any other discussion of an idea like that is pointless.

Which brings me to my second point. The original concern on this page had to do with the legitimate problem of a staff member's page exploding with suggestions and flooding with comments from the community. This is a problem we've had with nearly every staff member's page since any one has ever replied on their page. The simple fact is that this problem is not a design problem. Even if the feedback space were the absolute perfect venue for providing feedback, and even if we had proof that devs read feedback pages and that they used them to improve the game, people would still flood dev talk pages with game suggestions. Why wait for a dev to read your page when you can go direct to the source? As I said, this is not a design issue, it is an enforcement one. We simply need to more diligently move suggestions off dev talk pages so that people will understand that they need to go elsewhere. Will it solve the problem completely? No. But it will make it more manageable. And there is no reason to try and reinvent the wheel on this. (Satanael | talk) 01:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"and even if we had proof that devs read feedback pages and that they used them to improve the game, people would still flood dev talk pages with game suggestions." ...quite the opposite. We've been given nearly unquestionable evidence over the last couple years that they had no intentions of reading the bulk of suggestion space. (except for the Bug Reports) ...which I'll point out was something you implied was the main point when this whole thing kicked off... that it'd be a dumping ground with the best of intentions but a high bar of entry. Wyn knows it too from her private discussions with the devs but won't let slip "the awful truth". Even when Regina was bothered enough to write a huge response on the whole thing, anyone who's not an idiot could read between the lines that Diplomacy was her only motive in it... something she's been criticized for lately even more so by the Gw2 community. The only things that HAVE really been influenced over the last couple years by fan responses where the "We think this X-attribute is L.A.M.E. in Y-situation" that have thankfully been allowed to plague the Talk pages of the devs all along. ...mainly b/c the Devs are just human like the rest of us and will tend to be coerced into giving attention to whatever the masses are shouting about. It's just icky dirty Chaos and counter-productive to the way a Wiki is supposed to work but so far it's the only bargaining chip they've given anyone. Anything you've ever posted to address the function of the Feedback space that doesn't acknowledge this growing mountain of evidence, might as well just be forever sealed off from the rest of us in a steel vault complete with a Geiger trigger, Cyanide-under-hammer, and an iconic felidae for us to forever theorize its living status while the real paydirt is in being the most vocal minority on Guru. (LOL, GvG'ers). --ilr 21:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, after once again reading through this stuff I have decided that you and others choosing who can provide feedback by "We made the feedback space user unfriendly on purpose. If it is any easier, we will get nothing but spam/junk suggestions that absolutely no one cares about." (per wyn above) I would like to know what qualifies as "Spam/Junk suggestions" and what makes one persons feedback over a game more important than anybody else's please. I also would like to know who decides what is spam/junk feedback as per wyn's statement above and how somebody not employed by anet can call other feedback spam or junk. perhaps we the players of this game decide that your feedback is spam/junk and want to add our own. I do not feel that just because you personally(as a fan) think that somebody else's feedback is spam or junk. You have no right to decide for anet in this situation. Go ahead call me a troll for disagreeing with you but you truly are limiting other players from giving feedback in this game by making it overly complicated to do so. 108.75.73.62 21:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

cool story huh? next time do not admit it before you deny it. 108.75.73.62 22:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole idea of doing "feedback" on a wiki system was the problem to begin with. It's not efficient and it gets cluttered ultra fast. When wikipedia wants "feedback" they don't use the wiki system to gather that feedback. They used a 3rd party company that does surveys and feedback to gather and compile the data. It's like trying get to LA from NY with a bicycle. You can get there eventually, but there are much easier and more efficient ways to get there, like by car or plane. The WHOLE reason they did the WiK survey was because it was hard to gauge the community from forums and the wiki effectively. The developers get enough suggestions without solicitation. What they want that is lacking are community opinions that can only be done with a poll, survey, etc; which the wiki will not do. If you want an ultra easy way to leave feedback, I'd suggest people go to guru or other forums that Anet frequents instead. Wiki system and "feedback" never really mixed well to begin with. Wiki is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias don't ask questions or solicit suggestions. --Lania 23:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) 108, I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. We had an open suggestion area prior to this, and it was full of... "Make it like WoW", or "add this from Runescape" or even better... "Make my character look like Chuck Norris" suggestions from every other anonymous person who posted. This is what I mean by spam/junk suggestions. More time was spent tagging that kind of stuff for deletion and then fighting over whether it should be deleted or not than anything else. In the old system, members of the community had the right to "decide" that someone else's ideas were junk and change them, or as mentioned tag them for deletion. As you point out... what gives any of us the right to decided those things?

In the system now, you are not allowed to modify anyone else's suggestions as they are treated like userpages. They do not get tagged for deletion unless they are submitted improperly and in every case where this has occurred, they have been given clear instructions on their talk page how to fix the problems and have not done so, or unless the user themselves tags them for deletion. This leaves it solely up to ArenaNet which suggestions to consider. So... you have simply proven by your own statements that the system as it stands is exactly what you want. Where is the problem? You don't want to register? Well, the consequences for that choice... and it's purely your choice, is not being able to submit a suggestion for the developers to consider.

Again, you are welcome to suggest any changes to the instructions on the getting started page, or on the editintro page that you feel will make this easier for people to understand. The fact that the ones that find this so complicated haven't bothered to read any of it is besides the point.

There are basically 3 requirements for submitting a suggestion:

1. Be a registered user of the wiki (a pretty standard requirement for any website).
2. Agree to the copyright terms and create your Feedback:User page. (Type your username in a box and click on an "I Agree" button)
3. Complete the provided template to properly organize your suggestion.

How this can be considered overly complicated and therefore limiting is a mystery to me. -- Wyn talk 23:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It is funny, but that is the most ... boiled down description of those instructions I have seen(over the last 2 years of reading these pages). Believe me I read ALL of the information on the page/s for creating feedback. Perhaps the amount of data one has to pore through to get (what is that, 3 general instructions?) is considerably overwhelming(which complicates the process by creating confusion). Do not get me wrong I am not trying to "troll" I am trying to understand the meaning of your comments. Some of those suggestions(which you have quoted above)I would agree do not belong. Can you genuinely say that every person who gives feedback would make such a comment? Consider also people keep saying go to guru to give feedback/suggestions.

Anet does not accept feedback nor suggestions from anywhere other than the wiki (by their own words - so other forums are out). But I have to say that reading through all of this that I realize that feedback is an illusion they create to make people feel like they have said their piece. I think perhaps Anet is at fault for allowing the creation of such a faulty feedback space. 108.75.73.62 16:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Consider the fact of the new Skill update preview, there is some obvious power creep going on with mesmer. Every skill update that has included mesmer skills in the last year has been to buff buff and buff some more. There has been no mitigation of the overly strong skills.

I am unable to give my feedback about this because the feedback space is overly complex. Would you rather have me comment on 15 pages about it or be able to easily say my piece in a place Anet says they look and get on with it.

I mean, That is it in a nutshell. (I do not bring this here to discuss it I bring it here as an example of some feedback that I would like to place in the proper spot and am unable to do so because I cannot figure out how to use the feedback space - so I use it in example). 108.75.73.62 18:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You can freely give your feedback on any update on the update's talk page. That's why they are in the feedback namespace. Anet can read them and they are not limited to anyone. -- Wyn talk 19:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the IP already commented at Feedback talk:Skill update previews/20110317; the comment made it to the right spot just fine.

Incidentally, I just went to Feedback:Getting started to see if I could simplify the instructions (in light of the various comments here)...and it's all there in the table of contents: read the rules, create a home page, review other feedback, create your own using the template. The only change I can think of to simplify it would be to replace the auto-generated ToC with a manual, bulleted list. (Apologies to the original authors for the implied backhanded compliment.)

I'm happy to give it another shot if people could (ahem) suggest what they find difficult in reading the short version (ToC) or the long version (full text). I know from writing manuals professionally that what's obvious to the writer isn't always obvious to the reader, but (ahem, again) it's not obvious to me what's missing, convoluted, or misleading in the Getting started page.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

TEF you see my point, what is obvious to you guys is not always obvious to everyone else.

If I could narrow it down, believe me I would. All I really know is that I am having a hard time understand what I need to do and feel very overwhelmed by the amount of information on multiple pages which I have had to pore through to try and figure this out.

Alas, I am unsure exactly as to what should change in the instructions as I have been unable to figure the current ones out so the process still makes no sense to me. I appreciate you guys taking the time to hear my concerns and I never meant for it to get this long. It is however very frusterating when things which are obviously(to me) an issue get denied by others because it is obvious(to them) how to do it. I wish I could be more assistance in describing what exact part of this is my hurdle, but that is why I am asking for help in making it easier to approach.

So my concerns about the power creep is in the correct spot? If so then that is all I need and this whole conversation can be finished. 108.75.73.62 19:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For your power creep comments? Yeah, you've done as much as you need to to raise the issue. If you want to add a specific suggestion, you would need to create an account. Ignoring the read this instructions, your next two steps would be: (a) create a home page in Feedback (there's a link for that in getting started) and (b) create a suggestion page (there will be a link for that on your feedback home page).

If you get that far, the worst that you could do is incorrectly complete the template (and ask for help should the instructions on the suggestion-creation page be insufficient). The template is more difficult than simply typing, but you can just copy/paste from the help (again, that's right above the editing box, so it's hard to miss).

If you can't pinpoint exactly what is slowing you down, could you tell us how far you have gotten in the process? Did you create a user account? Did you create a feedback home page? Or are you stopping even before doing those two things because the volume of instructions is daunting? Am I even on the right track? Thanks. (Editors: feel free to move this to my talk page; the results might have a bearing on the general discussion, but at the moment, this is more of of a one-on-one convo)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Evaluating the situation

I've been reading through this whole discussion, trying to make sense of it and be able to reply to the people questioning the current situation, e.g., the requirements set to be able to submit suggestions. Even if there's been a lot of work and efforts put behind this system, it's worth (at least for me, I learnt a lot thanks to this debate) looking at it again from the angle of the players complaining about the difficulty to submit a suggestion (and only from that angle, as other arguments have been debated at length before).

The two sides of the discussion are:

- side 1: the current suggestion portal has been put in place to give appropriate management tools to the community so that our developpers can read them conveniently;

- side 2: the wiki is a tool for the community and should be widely accessible, so as to not limit its access; it's currently difficult for people not versed in wikis to submit a suggestion.

Now, there are a lot of subparts in each sides of this argument and I'm not going to dive any deeper (for example, the opinion of the wiki people actually managing this feedback space, on side 1). What is required is some refocusing so that everyone can agree with a consensus. They key point is that the developers are the recipients of these suggestions. Their time and resources is limited and critical, it's important to minimize the impact this tool has on them, as opposed to the time it takes to make suggestions.

While the current organisation requires players who want to submit a suggestion to perform a few actions, these are not excessively complex and seem in line with the idea of ensuring a certain level of control over suggestions. Everyone has an opinion about various topics (skill updates for example) and it's all right, but responsible feedback needs to be more constructive and focused. The current system seems user-friendly in that sense: any one who wants to post her feedback responsibly will probably find acceptable to spend a few minutes going through the Getting started guide.

As part of this evaluation, I also talked to developers about this and, as such, the current suggestion tool is appropriate for them.

We're trying to strike a balance between ease of use for the players and developers, which also ensures that the feedback can be taken into account efficiently. In conclusion, I don't think that there's any significant action required. It'd be an improvement to add visibility to the Getting started guide, but that's not a requirement. The status quo seems acceptable at this point.

Feel free to express your opinions about this matter.

Moving Guild Wars 2 game suggestions to the Guild Wars 2 Wiki

On a different but somewhat related topic, the idea of moving Guild Wars 2 game suggestions to the Guild Wars 2 Wiki is off, as the Feedback namespace is exclusively "located" on the Guild Wars Wiki. Getting something similar on the Guild Wars 2 Wiki would require much more thoughts and work, so for the moment it's very low on the todo list. --Stephane Lo Presti talk 00:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the response, Stephane, but you did neglect to address a third side of the debate - those who wonder whether the devs actually read the suggestions and would like more of an assurance from them that they actually do, that the player voice actually matters. I'm not trying to argue or anything, I don't want to, I just wanted let you know that that's just what some people here do think. Including me, once upon a time, but while the concern is there, the desire to debate it is not. I just wanted to be sure you knew there was another side here so you can address it, that's all. Thanks for your time and consideration. Nathe 17:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not realistic for the developers to add to their already very busy schedule the task to provide feedback on this feedback. The current situation is already a tradeoff that we've accepted and we'd like to keep it that way, so that the developers can focus on making the game(s) while still being able to take players' feedback/suggestions into account.--Stephane Lo Presti talk 16:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI: John Stumme (and others) have already addressed the issue of whether devs read the suggestions (they do).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it looks like today's update is going to take a number of suggestions and make them a reality. If the previous updates that used suggestions combined with today's update still aren't enough to convince you that they're looking, you might as well give up and simply not contribute. -- FreedomBound 17:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand, and thanks for replying to what I said. People just like to hear something other than silence, is all, which can be interpreted in many ways. Perhaps if the devs' already-posted assurances that the feedback was being read (the ones TEF just mentioned) were made more visible, maybe through links on the main feedback page or something, that would help. That way people posting suggestions to the space can see right there while they're doing it that it's true. I'd guess that a counter or somesuch to show how many suggestions were looked at on a given day or week or whatever (editable only by the devs, naturally) probably would be unlikely, but I thought I'd toss the idea out anyway. Anyway, I appreciate the swift response, and thanks again! Nathe 17:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

@Nathe: would you like to see one of Stumme's (relevant) quotes added to the the suggestion space? I'm thinking somewhere in the instructions page (that pops up whenever you create a suggestion), on the page when you first create your feedback, in the rules, and on Feedback:Main. I'll draft some language and setup a request for comments someplace. (Roughly, I'm thinking: "hey, we do read your feedback, but we don't have time to respond (see x/y/z discussion for details)").  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be good, and there was a fairly lengthy one from Regina, it's a bit old now but might still apply. I don't know where to find it though. And any others you know of would be good to have there too, so people can see it's not just one person saying it but different devs at different times. That makes it more convincing, I think, than one person's word alone. Maybe put each of those comments the devs made about it on a separate page (one per section of the page, maybe), and link to that with maybe a brief summary like what you were saying - "We do read and appreciate your feedback, but unfortunately we don't have enough time to respond to them individually. See the links below for more information." Something like that, maybe. Nathe 19:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)